The History of the World: From the Dawn of Humanity to the Modern Age: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day

Welsh cuts right through any preconceptions we might have about the importance of our own local and regional histories to put them in their proper historical context. In this way he gives us the big picture of humanity's path so far carefully leading us through our own history.

This coffee table sized book is first class! Excellent illustrations and illuminating text. Congratulations to Frank on this superb publication! JQ

Unfortunately, this book was poorly edited. As somebody who has read one or two histories of the world in the past, I enjoyed reading the opinions of the author, whether or not I agreed; unfortunately, this enjoyment may be lost on newcomers to history as the author does seem to think that many major events and persons will be known by all. More damaging is the editing; some sentences are logically rather difficult to parse, sometimes making it difficult to see the intended point. One or two factual errors are schoolboyish; for example, Poland is considered to have disappeared for 200 years by the time of its independence at the end of World War One, when even if we count back to the first partition, the gap is actually about 160 years, less than 125 starting more sensibly from the third and final phase. Worse is the highly questionable claim of a major contribution by the Chinese Communist Party to the war against the Japanese, without any mention of the rather well-supported counter-claims of Kuomintang involvement. This makes it difficult for most readers to know how seriously to take other claims by the author. This is a great pity as it is a rather stimulating book, with generally well-selected material, making a little writing go a very long way.

This was my holiday read this year. Frank did a very good job of bringing together the human story of the planet. Some very interesting insights and segways. The strength of reading a history of the world (says me as a former History teacher)is it really helps with perspective, joining the dots. All students wandering over to degree level, might find this more digestible/useful than Roberts.

One of the best historical books I have ever read.If you ever wanted to know about the history of the world, this is definitely worth reading!

Difficult to write a book like this in one paperback volume that will please all, but as a bargain bucket buy, this was okay. I can't say that it was so enthralling that I raced through it. In fact it took me weeks of dipping in and out before I got to the end. It's also poorly edited, with in one case a typo of a dozen or so letters of gibberish! Also off-putting was the author's apparent anti-Israel bias, with sweeping statement against America's support for Israel "even when clearly in the wrong" (when was the politics of the Middle East ever clear?) and other petty sideswipes.

I've got to agree with another reviewer here, Frank doesn’t like Israel. He doesn’t like Christians either.Here are some examples;P. 79 'the prophet Jesus of Nazareth' - Only Muslim's believe this. He is not mentioned at all in the literature of Judaism. Christians believe He is the Messiah, the Anointed One of God.P. 79 'Virgin Birth based upon a mistranslation of Hebrew to Greek' - This is a popular Stephen Fry type rationalist position. Luke's gospel dates between CE40 and CE140, Matthew CE 40 to [say] destruction of the temple in CE70. At this time the term used, 'parthenos', meant 'virgin'. There is also a context issue. Matthew 1:18 says "before they were married she was found to be pregnant from the Ruach HaKodesh". And in the gospel of Luke 1:34 it says, "How can this be asked Miryam of the angel, since I am a virgin?".I'm not saying Frank should believe the Bible BTW, I am saying he should accurately report it's contents.P.100 'There were now three Peoples of the Book' - No there weren't. 'People of the Book' is a derogatory' term used by certain types of Muslims to describe Christians and Jews.P.101 the Ka'aba,..placed there by Abraham and his son Ishmael (Isaac).' - No, Ishmael and Isaac were not the same person, they were half-brothers.P. 101 'Muhammad himself, a modest man, was the 'Messenger' ' - This one made me laugh. The modest man who became king of Arabia and boasts of committing the worlds' first genocide, the massacre of the Banu Qurayza in CE627. Maybe fellow apologist Karen Armstrong would agree with this characterisation of the notorious war-lord (peace be upon him and all that), but she'd be the only one.Anyone can see where Welsh's sympathies lie. He’s an academic with a PC, liberal, leftist, anti Israel, anti Christian bias. But, to be fair, I found it diverting enough, although I'm a catholic, once I'd made allowance for Frank's agenda.